Five Questions for Ian Lipkin, the Scientist Who Designed Contagion's Virus

In Steven Soderbergh's new film Contagion, out Sept. 9, a deadly new virus appears in Chicago, and the Centers for Disease Control, led by Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishbourne), cordons off the city in a desperate attempt to control the outbreak. Early reviews have praised Contagion's science as some of the best to come out of Hollywood, and that's largely thanks to the help of Dr. W. Ian Lipkin. From his lab, the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University, Lipkin has identified more than 400 viruses in the past decade, and he advised the cast and crew of Contagion. He tells PM about his work with the film—including how he designed the virus.

You designed the virus in the film, which is a hybrid of pig and bat viral strains. What inspired you?

There had been recent reports about the Nipah virus, which can spread from bats to pigs to people. Reports were coming in from Bangladesh that there was human-to-human transmission going on, too, and concerns that the virus might have evolved to become more virulent. And it causes not only respiratory illness, but encephalitisand seizurestoo. It looked like a winner.

The plausibility of the film makes Contagion really frightening. What else will make the plot hit home with audiences?

Killing off two stars, which not many directors will do, makes it very clear that no one is above [a pandemic]. For people who think they might be spared, [the film says]: If Gwyneth Paltrow can die, so can they.

Most Popular

Besides its scientific accuracy, how is Contagion different from other movies about pandemics?

Because the screenwriter and director are such bright people, they could explore many stories simultaneously, like in [director Steven Soderbergh's 2000 film] Traffic. There was an opportunity to explore the laboratory side, isolation centers, growing a virus, challenges to making and distributing vaccines, distributing food: all the things that might occur if we had a severe pandemic. The film shows the vulnerabilities of the current system and areas it needs to improve.

Is there any science in the film that isn't realistic?

One criticism is that the time from identification [of the virus] to a vaccine candidate being identified to distribution is too short. My response is that first of all, this virus is not going to be grown in fertilized eggs, and second of all, it shouldn't take us that long. We have the technology, using molecular methods, [to create vaccines much more quickly]. This film is, to some extent, a challenge.

Will people leave the film with a new perspective on the health care workers who fight pandemics?

I certainly hope so. This film is a memorial to some of the people who died over the course of many years, from diseases from SARS to Ebolapeople who put their lives on the line. The other thing is that we need more kids to go into science and engineering because, frankly, we haven't made those kinds of investments. We're trying to demonstrate that these people are the real heroes.